Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

So there is no performance increase in pooling, and could potentially be a decrease.

Thanks.

How are you coming to the conclusion that pooling would cause performance decrease? All pooling does is create a single virtual drive by combining together all the other drives. If anything, it should increase parallel bandwidth. If you are reading from multiple drives at the same time, you will get the full speed of all of those drives assuming your network can handle multi-gigabit speeds.

So there is no performance increase in pooling, and could potentially be a decrease.

Thanks.

How are you coming to the conclusion that pooling would cause performance decrease? All pooling does is create a single virtual drive by combining together all the other drives. If anything, it should increase parallel bandwidth. If you are reading from multiple drives at the same time, you will get the full speed of all of those drives assuming your network can handle multi-gigabit speeds.

Right. It improves performance if your reading from multiple drives at same time.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."

Sorry, was running into a restaurant for lunch. Not sure why I mentioned performance. I'm wondering whether the pooling capabilities provide any unnecessary stress on the drives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer

This is essentially what I want. More stuff on less drives -> less drive spin ups

Quote:

Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla

Isn't constantly spinning up and spinning down drives bad for them in the long run?

What these guys said

I've since read through the wiki, and while I'd like to learn more about how the developer maintains pooled drives I'm now pretty confident it's worth having. The Auto Merge with Minimized Folder Split Priority, as well with Mfusick's explanation above, are pretty much what I'm after.

Sorry, was running into a restaurant for lunch. Not sure why I mentioned performance. I'm wondering whether the pooling capabilities provide any unnecessary stress on the drives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer

This is essentially what I want. More stuff on less drives -> less drive spin ups

Quote:

Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla

Isn't constantly spinning up and spinning down drives bad for them in the long run?

What these guys said

I've since read through the wiki, and while I'd like to learn more about how the developer maintains pooled drives I'm now pretty confident it's worth having. The Auto Merge with Minimized Folder Split Priority, as well with Mfusick's explanation above, are pretty much what I'm after.

Thanks.

Brahim (Developer) Had made some good points in my server thread but it's buried now I think. (If I find it I'll post it)

I am debating whether to use minimum folder split or the balance-across-disks setup.
I tend to favor not spinning up/down disks because not only does it stress the drives, it also stresses the power supply system. This is probably less of an issue with enterprise grade components, but it is relevant when using consumer parts.

Every component failure I have had has been associated with a power-on event of some sort.

Also more even distribution of data across drives reduces data loss if a drive fails and Flexraid restore ends up not working.

Also more even distribution of data across drives reduces data loss if a drive fails and Flexraid restore ends up not working.

I don't understand much.
Let's say if many your .iso movies are splitted/ cut and stored acroos drives, then when Flexraid fails to restore one drive that died, you lose all your movies, right?
Because, let say you have 5 data drives, Flexraid cuts your iso 1 into 5 parts and keeps them on 5 different drives. It does the same with iso 2, 3, 4, ... blah .. blah.. When you bring, let say, drive 2 to another PC, it definitely fails to read data on that drive.

I don't understand much.
Let's say if many your .iso movies are splitted/ cut and stored acroos drives, then when Flexraid fails to restore one drive that died, you lose all your movies, right?
Because, let say you have 5 data drives, Flexraid cuts your iso 1 into 5 parts and keeps them on 5 different drives. It does the same with iso 2, 3, 4, ... blah .. blah.. When you bring, let say, drive 2 to another PC, it definitely fails to read data on that drive.

I doubt Flexraid splits files. If it did, the whole concept of being able to pull out a drive from the array and still be able to access the files would fall apart.